Tuesday, March 8, 2016

GREENEVILLE, GREENE COUNTY TN - THE OWNERS OF 2 PIT BULLS THAT "SOMEHOW" GOT OUT OF THEIR PEN AND "HAD NEVER SHOWN AGGRESSION BEFORE" MUST PAY UP, SERVE PROBATION AND NOT OWN A DOG DURING PROBATION = "EDUCATED NUTTERS"?

The owners of TWO PIT BULL DOGS that attacked and killed another dog on Jan. 2 and injured the dog’s owner entered guilty pleas Monday in General Sessions Court to misdemeanor offenses and were placed on unsupervised probation for 11 months and 29 days.

As part of a plea agreement involving Travion Jackson and Candace Cavaliere, the two pit bull dogs in the custody of Greene County Animal Control will be euthanized.

Jackson and Cavaliere, both 34, are also prohibited from owning any dogs during the period of their probation, and must find a new home for a pit bull puppy they own within 30 days.

Jackson and Cavaliere, both of 122 Cumberland Drive, were also assessed fines totaling about $3,000 by Judge Kenneth Bailey Jr.

The owners of the Yorkshire terrier dog that was killed, Craig and Leslie Ogle, were in court Monday.

“I think justice has been served today. We just wanted to get the animals off the streets so they couldn’t murder again,” Craig Ogle said.

Jackson and Cavaliere entered guilty pleas to dogs running at large/bodily injury, and having no proof of vaccination for rabies. Both offenses are Class A misdemeanors.

A Greeneville police report said that Craig Ogle was trying to protect his pet dog from the unprovoked attack by the pit bulls in the 1700 block of Old Shiloh Road.

Ogle, who is chairman of the Greeneville City Board of Education, attempted to keep the attacking pit bulls off the terrier and suffered bites to the hand that required hospital treatment.

The Ogles live nearby on Old Shiloh Circle. Leslie Ogle told officers that her husband, 53, was walking his dog on a leash when the two pit bulls attacked.

Jackson and Cavaliere told police the dogs got out of an outdoor pen.

Jackson and Cavaliere could not provide any proof of up-to-date rabies vaccinations for the dogs. Summonses were issued to each on Jan. 2 and they first appeared in early January in General Sessions Court. The plea agreement was finalized on Monday.

Cecil Mills Jr., first assistant district attorney general, said the plea agreement “was satisfactory to the victims.”

Jackson and Cavaliere have to pay a total of $1,591.35 to county Animal Control and $856.50 for Ogle’s medical bills relating to the pit bull attack, along with $500 in restitution for the pet that died.

The two pit bulls, kept by county Animal Control since the incident, will be euthanized.

“They feel very badly about this,” Santore said outside the courtroom. “The dogs never exhibited, at least from what they tell me, any vicious traits before and it just happened. They feel very sorry about what happened to the Ogles.”

The two pit bulls involved in the attack were kept in an outside kennel.

“They thought it had been tied down and they chewed at the ties or whatever,” Santore said.

Santore has owned pit bulls in the past.

“I think a pit bull is like any other dog. It can be taught to be bad,” he said. “Just as a precaution, I wouldn’t want my pre-school kids around pit bulls or any other large breed, for that matter.”

Proper training is crucial for any dog breed, Santore said.

“As far as anyone wanting to put a breed-specific ordinance in effect, I really wouldn’t want to characterize any breed,” he said. Jackson and Cavaliere wanted their dogs back, but agreed to the conditions of the plea arrangement.

“This is a no-win situation,” Santore said. “Both parties have lost (their pets).”

The case was prosecuted as an A-level misdemeanor.

“State law requires that it be unsupervised probation in this type of case,” Bailey said.

Bailey set a July 20 court date to review the case and ensure fines are being paid.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.